Where Do We Stand on 8 Can't Wait?

At Foothill-De Anza Community College District Police Department, we continually strive to achieve our goal of providing the highest quality service to fulfill the needs of the college community. We stay true to our mission and will commit our resources in partnership with the community to promote a safe and secure environment.

We recognize our diversity and acknowledge challenges in our communities and abroad. We will continue to work on building transparency, trust and listen to our community. Here is where we stand on the '8 Can't Wait' initiatives.

1. BAN CHOKEHOLDS AND STRANGLEHOLDS
   • Our department has never trained on the use of chokeholds and strangleholds as acceptable use of force. As of January 1, 2020, the use of ‘chokeholds’ is listed as prohibited in Use of Force policy 300.3.6.
2. REQUIRE DE-ESCALATION
   • De-escalation is interwoven throughout our department’s ongoing training and in our policy manual. De-escalation requirements are found specifically in our Use of Force policy 300 as of January 1, 2020. 100% of our officers have completed various types of de-escalation training, mental health and crisis response training. 60% of our officers have gone through advanced Crisis Intervention training and we are actively working at ensuring 100% of our officers complete this immersive training.
3. REQUIRE WARNING BEFORE SHOOTING
   • Our training and Use of Force Policy requires, where feasible, the officer shall make reasonable efforts to both; identify themselves as a peace officer and give commands or warnings before force is used and that deadly force may be used. Our officers make every effort to ensure that a situation is de-escalated and that all involved parties remain safe.
4. EXHAUST ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVES BEFORE SHOOTING
   • FHDA police officers are trained to use the least amount of force necessary to ensure the safety of all involved in a situation or incident. Our department policy requires officers to evaluate the use of other reasonably available resources and techniques when determining whether to use deadly force. The use of deadly force is only justified when there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
5. DUTY TO INTERVENE
   • Since January 1, 2020, our department policy requires officers to intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force by another officer. It is also required that the officer immediately report the incident to a supervisor.
6. BAN SHOOTING AT MOVING VEHICLES
   • FHDAPD policy 300.4.1 prohibits the firing of a weapon at a vehicle unless that vehicle is being used as deadly force against another person. An officer should only discharge a firearm if the officer reasonably believes there are no other reasonable means available to avert the imminent threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others. Our officers are not allowed to shoot at a vehicle in an attempt to disable it.
7. REQUIRE USE OF FORCE CONTINUUM
   • Per California law, PC 835a an in our Use of Force policy, officers shall use only the amount of force that reasonably appears necessary given the facts and totality of the circumstances known or perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
8. REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING
   • FHDAPD policy 300 subsections require any use of force to be documented promptly, completely, and accurately in a report. In addition to officer’s documenting use of force, there are additional levels of review by Sergeants and the Police Chief along with the department to document use of force incidents to the California Department of Justice.

Where Do We Stand on Tasers?

Foothill-De Anza Community College District Police Department is committed to employing less lethal technologies to de-escalate potentially dangerous situations while maintaining public safety and protecting the lives of our campus community members and officers. TASERs fill a critical gap in the de-escalation toolkit, providing an intermediary option before deadly force.

Overview

TASERs are deployed in over 18,000 agencies, including 78 of the 79 major cities in the USA and Canada and over 107 countries worldwide. TASERs are widely considered to be the most effective Less Lethal tool used in law enforcement.

Traditional force options, including Control Holds, OC Spray, Baton, and Less Lethal Munitions, rely on pain to overcome resistance and gain compliance.TASERs use Neuromuscular Incapacitation (NMI) to deliver controlled electrical signals that restrict movement by causing rapid muscle flexion.

History within Law Enforcement

TASERs have been used worldwide law enforcement for the past 30 years.

• Police department’s serving populations of 1 million or more, 100% of them authorize Tasers.
• Police department’s serving smaller populations, 75% - 93% authorize Taser’s.
• TASER are the most widely used intermediate use of force response in the U.S.

Important factors for use in Law Enforcement

1. Less Lethal Option: TASERs provide law enforcement officers with a less lethal alternative to firearms when dealing with potentially dangerous situations. They are designed to incapacitate suspects temporarily without causing serious injury or death in most cases. TASERs are the most technologically advancing intermediate force option.
   
2. Reduced Risk of Fatalities: Compared to lethal weapons like firearms, TASERs have been associated with lower rates of fatalities and serious injuries to both suspects and officers. This can help mitigate the risk of escalation in volatile situations.
   
3. Effective at a Distance: TASERs are capable of delivering an electrical charge from a distance, allowing officers to incapacitate suspects without engaging in close physical contact. This enhances officer safety and reduces the likelihood of physical confrontations.
   
4. Rapid Deployment: TASERs can be deployed quickly in high-stress situations, providing officers with a means to gain control over suspects and de-escalate potentially violent encounters.
5. De-escalation: Deploying TASERs while subduing individuals who are resisting arrest or exhibiting aggressive behavior can enhance officer safety and reduce the likelihood of physical confrontations. This can also help prevent the use of more lethal forms of force.
6. Training and Certification: Provide comprehensive training for officers on the proper use, handling, and deployment of TASERs to ensure that officers are proficient in operating the devices safely and effectively.
7. Public Perception: The use of TASERs is often perceived more favorably by the public compared to firearms or physical force. They are are viewed as a less aggressive and more humane means of law enforcement intervention, particularly in situations where lethal force may not be justified.
   
8. Legal Considerations: TASERs have been subject to legal scrutiny, resulting in clear guidelines and protocols for their use by law enforcement agencies. Compliance with these legal standards help mitigate the risk of liability and litigation associated with use of force incidents.
   

Legislation

California Penal code requires police officers to “de-escalate” situations. 835a of the California Penal code states:

“It is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.”

(2022) AB 1406, requires peace officers that carry Tasers, to require that device to be holstered on the opposite side of their firearm. This legislation stemmed from two high-profile deaths of Daunte Wright (Minneapolis) and Oscar Grant (BART) where officers stacked both weapons on the same side, a practice that led to both tragic deaths.

(2021) 7286 of the Government Code, enacted by SB 230 requires every law enforcement officer to receive robust training designed to minimize the use of force, and establish specific policy requirements on de-escalation, use of force and more.

(1989) Graham v. Connor established a legal standard for evaluating the use of force by law enforcement officers and provides guidance on determining whether use of force is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. At least 3 factors must be taken into consideration to assess the reasonableness of an officer's actions:

1. The severity of the crime
2. Is the suspect an immediate threat to the police officer or the public
3. Is the suspect actively resisting or evading arrest

Product Specifications, Accountability

• TASERs have built-in logs provide the public and law enforcement accountability for any of their uses.
• Tasers automatically record and log all uses including the time, date and duration. 
• Pulse Graphs record every individual electrical pulse and indicate when pulses make conductive contact. No other lethal or intermediate force provides this level of accountability.
• Users must clearly justify each activation as the internal logs are encrypted and non-erasable.
  

FAQ's

1. Do TASERs electrocute people?
   • No, TASERs send a signal to your muscles telling them to flex. This is the same technology you see in off-the-shelf muscle stimulators used for rehab and muscle therapy. The amount of current actually delivered in this signal is extremely low, far below the amount needed to electrocute someone. A single Christmas tree light bulb outputs 100 times more current than TASER 7 energy weapons. (Light bulb = 156mA, X2/X26P = 1.2 mA, TASER 7 = 1.4 mA) 
     
2. Do TASERs have long-term effects?
   • A subject can recover immediately and most feel no residual side-effects. There are no known long-term effects from being exposed to a TASER. There are more than 850 reports, abstracts, studies and reference materials on TASER energy weapons, in addition to approximately 5 million field deployments over 25 years. 
     
3. Will a TASER stop a pacemaker?
   • No, TASERs work by circulating electrical current through a subject, causing temporary immobility. However, the level of current delivered is quite low, well below the level necessary to interfere with a pacemaker. Pacemakers are required by regulation to withstand an AED shock, which has thousands of times more energy than a TASER.
     
4. What makes electricity dangerous?
   • What makes electricity dangerous to humans doesn’t have much to do with voltage, but rather with current. When voltage passes through an object or subject at a very high current, that can be dangerous. TASER energy weapons use a relatively low current, which provides a reliable safety profile and allows them to be classified as less-lethal weapons.

Studies, Research and Findings

TASERs are the most studied less-lethal weapons with 995+ human studies, letters, abstracts, and reports. See more research and medical studies here: http://www.ecdlaw.info/1.pdf  

2021 - 2023

2023 study of non-fatal injuries among police officers, about 11% of officers involved in a use-of-force encounter were injured. The odds of an officer injury were 21.5 times greater when using hands-on tactics. - "Non-fatal injuries among police officers during use-of-force encounters", Occupational Medicine.

In 2021, either no significant association between CED exposure and adverse health outcomes or reported contradictory findings. Exposure to the electrical current of a CED does not seem to be associated with serious health problems, especially when maximum duration ranges between 5 and 15 seconds. The risk for adverse health outcomes associated with CED exposure can therefore be estimated as low. – 2021 “Human Health Risks of Conducted Electrical Weapon Exposure: A Systematic Review,” JAMA Network Open.

2018 - 2020

A 2020 study of approximately 60,000 uses of force in the United Kingdom found that TASERs were only discharged 18% of the time they were drawn, as the mere display often gains compliance before deployment becomes necessary. When TASERs were deployed, they resulted in fewer injuries than use of police dogs, batons, OC spray and physical confrontation. - “Medical implications of Conducted Energy Devices in law enforcement.” Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine.

This 2019 paper reported no scientifically verified TASER CEW deployments causing fatal cardiac arrhythmia. Handheld conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) have been used 3.9 million times in the field in 107 countries. Prospective studies (including over 40,000 uses of force) find a 65% reduction in subject injuries versus batons, manual control, and “pepper” spray. There is a 2/3 reduction in fatal shootings when CEW usage is not overly restricted. - "Benefits, Risks, And Myths Of Taser Handheld Electrical Weapons ", Human Factors and Mechanical Engineering for Defense and Safety.

In 2018, US DOJ funded a use of force study in "Injuries Associated with Police Use of Force" where 1.04 million calls for service were analyzed in 3 mid-size police departments in a 2-year period where they found after unarmed physical force (51%), that TASER energy weapons (36%) were the most common methods used by police. Far less force included chemical agents (6.3%) and K-9s (3.4%), while impact weapons, batons, plastic bullets, and firearms combined were <1%.

“With over 500 uses resulting in no significant injuries, these data suggest that energy weapon use is the force option least likely to result in significant suspect injury. This finding is consistent with prior epidemiology studies of energy weapon use.” Analysis showed that most of the 16 significant injuries were associated with firearms and dogs while none were incurred in the 504 uses of conducted electrical devices, Tasers.

The large majority of Use of Force cases in this series use lower levels of force such as unarmed physical force and CEDs. This reflects modern police practice in the United States as many agencies now equip some or all of their officers with CED’s. - "Injuries Associated with Police Use of Force", Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery.

2010 - 2015

In the 2015 Criminal Justice Policy Review, the study analyzed 504 use-of-force incidents in large police agency wherein OC spray or CEDs were used, and found CEDs were substantially more effective than OC spray, with energy weapons effective 90.2% of the time and OC spray effective only 73.8% of the time. “Given the research that has been conducted, it is safe to say that TASERs have inherent advantages over OC spray in their ability to incapacitate subjects.”  - “OC & CEWs: A Comparison of Factors Predicting Use and Effectiveness”, Criminal Justice Policy Review

Controversial questions are often raised during discussion of some incidents in which TASER devices have been used. The main purpose of this 2014 paper was to point out some misconceptions about CEWs that have been published. This narrative review used a multidisciplinary approach of analyzing reports from scientific/medical and other literature sources. "In previous reports, durations of incapacitating effects and possible associations of CEWs with deaths-in-custody have often been overstated or exaggerated. Comparisons of CEW effects with “electrocution” are misleading. Assumptions that all uses of CEWs constitute excessive force or torture are misleading and unwarranted." - "TASER conducted electrical weapons: misconceptions in the scientific/medical and other literature”, Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology.

A study In 2011, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) published a five-year study on mortality reviews of nearly 300 CED related deaths and 175 peer reviewed articles and concluded the following:

• "The risk of death in a CED-related use-of-force incident is less than 0.25 percent, and it is reasonable to conclude that CEDs do not cause or contribute to death in the large majority of those cases."
• "The relative risk of CED deployments appears to be lower than other use-of-force options.” Page 3.
• "The risks of cardiac arrhythmias or death remain low and make CEDs more favorable than other weapons.” Page 10.
• "All evidence suggests that the use of CEDs carries with it a risk as low as or lower than most alternatives.” Page 24.
• “CED use is associated with a significantly lower risk of injury than physical force, so it should be considered as an alternative in situations that would otherwise result in the application of physical force.” Page 31. - "Five-year NIJ study: Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption", National Institute of Justice